Roger Goodell Needs to Protect All Groups

This is the dry spell of the year for a guy like me.  It’s July and early August.  Training camps are open and I check the blogs, news reels and every other source or app I can for news, or the hope of lack thereof.  This is the time of year you don’t want your team in the news.  Because the news is never good.  Usually it’s Running Back X beat up person Y in a bar and will be suspended.  Or Receiver W tore his ACL and is out for the season, or Center G dislocated his hip (I shudder thinking about that one).

Yes, I’m talking about football!

I’m a die-hard football fan.  College is my preferred game, ask my wife.  From the time “Game Day” comes on in the morning on Saturday, until the last West Coast game goes off in the wee-hours of Sunday morning, I’m glued to the TV and pretty much useless for any household chores.  She calls herself a football widow.  For that honey, I am truly sorry!

This post however isn’t about college football, it’s about the pro game.  You know, “The Shield”  The N.F.L. (imagine me saying that in a deep, masculine and powerful voice with an orchestra of music behind me).  Where all my good college players go to make their millions.

I’m an on again, off again fan.  I’ve been with teams that have been a joke positively atrocious for years.  I spent years not watching.  I even spent years without a team to cheer for.  I’ve finally settled on a team.

I settled on them because they’re local.  Their summer training camp is just a few miles from my home.  I chose them because they have an exciting player to watch.  I chose them because they are my little brothers favorite team.  I’ve chosen them because some of my family members have had tickets to them for years and have lived and died as fans and will never follow another team.

That team, is the Washington Redskins.  I’ve never been a big fan of their name.  I have Native American heritage in my blood.  I’m proud of that.  But I decided to overlook it.  Until today.

Today, news broke, the bad kind (of course) for another team in the NFL.  Riley Cooper, of the Philadelphia Eagles, was video taped a few months ago at a concert, threatening to fight a group of people.  That group of people had a different skin color than him.  He used a racial slur.  A very nasty racial slur (they all are) and he was immediately fined by his team owner within hours of the news coming to light about his statement.  Good on ya’ owner of the Eagles, even in his “off time” he’s still a representative of the Eagles (see previous post about being the ambassador of your group).  He has since put out the obligatory apologies, spoken to his teammates, and apologized to them.  Michael Vick even came out as the leader of the team accepting his apology.

You have to make amends as best you can to those around you.  I’m fine with that.

Roger Goodell, was on a morning talk show this morning.  Most that follow the NFL perceive him as a strong handed, rule-with-an-iron-fist type of commisioner.  Some of the things he’s done, I agree with, others I do not.  He explained that since the team has fined Mr. Cooper, due to the collective bargaining agreement with the league and the union, the league cannot fine him again for the same offense.  I believe in Unions, and I believe in groups honoring those agreements.  While personally, I believe he deserves more of a punishment, that’s not for me to say, that’s between him, his owner, his coaches and his fellow players.  I’m fine with Mr. Cooper not getting additional punishment from the league.

However, Mr. Goodell, when asked about the team in Washington declined to push the envelope.  Even saying, “I grew up in the Washington area and was a Redskins fan as a child.”  He went on to say that the name represents Pride, Heritage and Tradition.

Excuse me?!?!?!?

If you say that what Riley Cooper has done is wrong and immoral.  How is a team name that is seen as offensive to another ethnic group not wrong and immoral?  Is it okay to offend Native Americans because there are fewer of them?  Since there are more African Americans, it’s not okay to use the N-word, but it’s okay to use a different derogatory term to a smaller segment of the population??

If as Goodell says like a broken record, “Represent the NFL and ‘The Shield’ in a positive way,” how can you not go to Dan Snyder (the overly obnoxious owner of the team in Washington) and demand that a name change be made?  Right is right and wrong is wrong.

If we look at the NFL as an org chart, it goes something like this….

• Roger Goodell – Commissioner
• Owners
• Players

If the boss of the players can discipline a player for the use of a derogatory term, the Commissioner (the boss) should be obligated to do the same to the owner of a team.  He has the power to put a positive light on the NFL and protect The Shield and put a mandate to any owner that a name change must be made.  Is it because he was a fan of the team as a child that he ignores this duty?  Is it just because there are not any (to my knowledge) Native American players in the NFL, or is it just plain apathy towards a smaller segment of the population.

That’s probably it, a smaller segment of the population is a smaller segment of advertising revenue, merchandise, etc.  Why protect a big group and step on the throats emotionally of a smaller group?  Because. You. Can.

I understand you can’t make everyone happy all the time.  Someone can be offended by the name of anything.  If they changed their name to the Washington Kittens, some animal rights group would be offended I’m sure.  But this isn’t about Heritage, Tradition or Pride.  You can say it is, but that term, just like the N-word doesn’t evoke those emotions in the folks that are in that demographic.  To them, it’s the exact opposite.  Oppression, Hate and Diluting of the Heritage, Tradition and Pride of that group, as they were systematically moved across the country from their homelands to reservations, and taken from everything they’ve ever known.  Sometimes poisoned with germ warfare and given drugs they were not immuned to handle.

A person can make mistakes, make amends and hopefully get a second chance after learning from that mistake.  A league, needs to be held to a higher standard.  Why is this not the conversation?  The league needs to decide, that anything racially insensitive is unacceptable.  Even if it’s a team that’s been in the league for years.  Even if it’s a team you cheered for as a child Mr. Goodell.  It’s time for a change.

If the league wants to make amends to two groups at once.  Perhaps the Red Tails name should be mandated by the league.  It removes the Redskins name.  It keeps the color scheme etc. of the existing team.  It promotes an animal that is local to the area, a Red Tail Hawk an animal that promotes strength, power, freedom and strong will. Finally, it will honor a group of African Americans that fought so valiantly for our country and our freedoms in WWII, the Tuskegee Airmen!

Colleges went through this in 1994, almost 20 years later, it’s time the NFL caught up with the times.  St. John’s changed from the Redmen to the Red Storm.  It’s time for my football team to step up and do the right thing!  Roger Goodell needs to get his head out of his ass and put pressure on Dan Snyder.

Sexism, Antiquated Ideology Still Rampant in 2013 Sports

Still overwhelmingly astonished by the sexist double standards and lack of safety precautions in sports.  It’s 2013!  Preconceived notions, antiquated ideology, sexist ideas and keeping it the way things were because “that’s the way my daddy did it” are, well, bullshit!

What am I talking about you ask?

Well, I’ve spent a lot of time the last couple of weeks, watching the Women’s College World Series (WCWS) in softball, and the men’s College World Series (CWS) in baseball.  I’ve greatly enjoyed the sportsmanship (overall) and the excitement and drama of the games.  While watching these games however, I’ve noticed a great deal of differences in the women’s games, and the men’s games.

While I understand there are differences, some more major than meets the eye, between softball and baseball, I found myself astonished at the differences in safety precaution and the protection from future injury.  First I’m going to talk about safety, then we’re going to discuss future injury and the sexist ways in which these are considered.

First, safety.  I thought this was quite interesting as I watched WCWS games.  Especially notable to me was watching Washington and Tennessee play.  Almost every player had a face mask on their batting helmets.  What?  Should we protect the “little ladies” faces in case they’re hit by a pitch?? 

Not a single face mask in a CWS game.  I guess we don’t care what the guys look like as they get drilled in the face with a fastball?  If my father played baseball without a face mask, why should I?  It’s not macho to protect yourself perhaps?  Or maybe I won’t be able to see the ball as well with a mask?  Let me tell you boys, some of those girls had no problems at all crushing the ball with their mask.  Or, use a mask like some of the hockey players do that’s just a clear shield.  We’ve got some guys out there with major injuries in baseball that need to push for better safety measures – we’ve pushed for PED’s out of the game (with varied success in the news lately), we’ve pushed for batting helmets, athletic cups etc.  We need to take the next steps.

After watching these games, I started thinking.  I researched some of the greater safety measures invented in the sports I had played.  The first cup was invented in 1874 for biking.  The cup was first used in baseball by a catcher with added protection in 1904.  So let me get this straight… it took us 30 years to “man up” and have a catcher start using an athletic cup after it was invented?  The plastic helmet was invented for greater protection by Riddell in 1938 and used in football.  Helmets in football began to be used in the 1920’s (you know, those super sexy leather ones), it took until 1938 for us to come up with a more sturdy brain bucket?!?!?!? 

So in total it took 34 years for men to decide that protecting their brains, was as important as protecting their junk?  C’mon!  Even if that were true in the stone age, why do we continue this cycle in 2013??

Finally, let’s discuss future injury.  Major League Baseball has this strange sense, that a pitcher cannot pitch beyond 100 pitches.  They used to pitch well into 100, 150+ pitches on a consistent basis.  There were less “specialists” of course, but pitching beyond 100, wasn’t considered detrimental to a pitchers health.  This thought process has steeped into the psyche of college coaches, at least on the men’s side of the circuit.  However, as I’ve watched a lot of the WCWS games, I’ve noticed, 100 pitches is nothing for these young ladies.  I watched a game that went 15 innings, multiple runs scored on both sides, and multiple hits and runners left on base.  Each side used 2 pitchers.  Each of these 4 pitchers went over 100 pitches each.  And one young lady in relief for Nebraska, went to 185 pitches!  Why is it okay to protect these men and their arms, but not these young ladies?  Is it the millions invested or potentially invested in these young men, or is it their health?  Making decisions based on money, is not what a caring coach should do!  If it’s truly their health, why is it okay for a young lady to almost double her pitch count compared to her male counterparts?? 

Yes, I understand that women pitch from closer to home plate, so they’re not throwing it as far (should they wear helmets and face masks too then? these aluminum bats have the ball explode into the field, both male and female – shouldn’t corner infielders and pitchers wear helmets as the 1st and 3rd base COACHES in MLB do?) but the ball is heavier.  I understand the pitching motion in inherently different.  But there’s still a ton of torque and violent twisting, pushing and rotation on a shoulder and arm in a fast pitch softball pitch (not to mention the spin they put on these balls to create the motion of the ball mid-air).  This can still lead to Tommy John and rotator cuff issues if not surgery.

So while it’s important we protect the “little ladies” faces, it’s not important to protect them from future injury in their shoulder and arms?  I guess if you’re just the little lady, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, you need a pretty face, but not a strong arm later in life.  “That’s the man’s job!”

I don’t understand how these antebellum – 1950’s era thought processes can continue in today’s age.  This is mind boggling to me.  Infuriating even.  If all “men” are created equal, that applies to the “fairer sex” as well, why protect the guys arm and shoulder, while destroying the lady’s?  Why protect the woman from potential head and facial injuries, but ignore that possibility for the man?

I guess it goes back to the way I was raised as a boy.  All men are created equal, but a woman is just as equal too.  It’s a shame that in 2013, we can’t get beyond some of the sexist ideas we’ve grown up with, and protect every player equally.  What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander, and vice versa.